This document outlines a standards-based assessment and rating system for secondary education. It discusses the philosophy of using assessment primarily as a quality assurance tool and for student self-reflection. The features include holistic and standards-based diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments. Various assessment tools and levels of proficiency are defined. A rubric is provided to assess student performance across knowledge, skills, understanding, and products/performances on a scale from beginning to advanced. The goal is to provide feedback to support student progress in attaining learning standards.

1. Standards-Based Assessment
and Rating System
SECONDARY LEVEL
BUREAU OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
 Philosophy of Assessment
 Features of the Standards-Based Assessment
 Nature of Assessment and Its Purpose
 Levels of Assessment
 Assessment Tools
 Levels of Proficiency
 Rating System
 Assessment Rubric
 Frequency of Assessment

3. Philosophy
 Assessment shall be used primarily as a quality
assurance tool to track student’s progress in the
attainment of standards, promote self-reflection and
personal accountability for one’s learning and
provide a basis for the profiling of student
performance.

4. Features
 Holistic
 Diagnostic (assessment for learning)
 Formative/Developmental (assessment for and assessment as
learning)
 Summative/Evaluative (assessment of learning)
 Standards-based
 Content- what the student knows, can do, and understands
 Performance- how the student transfers his/her understanding
to life situations

5. Nature of Assessment Purpose
Assessment Being summative, it measures
of Learning student’s attainment of standards.
Assessment The student reflects on results of
as Learning assessment, charts his/her own
progress, and plans next steps to
improve performance; builds
Assessment
metacognition as it involves the
of Learning student in setting and monitoring
own learning goals.
Assessment Determines student’s
for Learning background knowledge
and skills; tracks
student’s progress in
understanding

6. Performance Standard
Performance
APPROACHING PROFICIENCY
PRODUCTS/
L E V E L S OF A S S E S S M E N T
PERFORMANCES
(30%)
PROFICIENT
ADVANCED
DEVELOPING
BEGINNING
UNDERSTANDING(S)
(30%)
Understanding
PROCESS(SKILLS)
(25%)
KNOWLEDGE
(15%)
Content Standard
L E V E L S OF P R O F I C I E N C Y

7. Levels of Assessment
 Knowledge refers to the substantive content of the
curriculum namely the facts and information that the
student acquires.
 Process refers to the cognitive operations that the
student performs on facts and information for the
purpose of constructing meanings and understandings.
 Understandings refers to enduring big ideas,
principles and generalizations inherent to the discipline
which are assessed using the facets of understandings.
 Products/Performances refers to real-life application
of understanding as evidenced by the student’s
performance of authentic tasks.

8. Assessment Tools
 Knowledge – traditional tools e.g. paper-&-pencil
tests using multiple choice, true-or-false or matching
type tests and constructed response tests
 Process or Skills - outline, organize, analyze,
interpret, translate, convert or express information
in another form or format; draw analogies,;
construct graphs, flowcharts and mind maps or
graphic organizers; or transform a textual
presentation into a diagram

9. Assessment Tools
 Understandings – facets of understandings
 Products & Performances – authentic products
or performance tasks that a student is expected to do
to demonstrate his/her understanding

10. Facets of Understanding
Concept

11. Products and Performances
 Students demonstrate conceptual understanding, and
content and skill acquisition or show evidence of their
learning through products and performances.
 Products and performances promote self-understanding,
self-monitoring, and self-assessment.
 They include opportunities for authentic audiences to
experience and critique results
 They permit choices and combinations of oral, written,
visual, and kinesthetic modes

12. At the Level of Understanding
 Do products and/or performances reflect evidence
of students’ learning?
At the Level of Performance
 Do products and/or performances demonstrate
students conceptual understanding, and content
and skill?

14. Levels of Proficiency
The student at this level possesses the
minimum knowledge and skills and core
understandings, but needs help
Developing
throughout the performance of authentic
tasks.
(75-79%)
(75-79%)
The student at this level struggles
with his/her understanding;
Beginning
prerequisite and fundamental
knowledge and/or skills have not
been acquired or developed
adequately to aid understanding.below)
(74% &

15. (90% &
The student at this level exceeds the core
above)
Advanced
requirements in terms of knowledge, skills and
understandings, and can transfer them automatically
and flexibly through authentic performance tasks.
The student at this level has developed the
fundamental knowledge and skills and core (85-89%)
Proficient
understandings, and can transfer them
independently through authentic performance tasks.
The student at this level has developed the
fundamental knowledge and skills and core
Approaching
understandings and, with little guidance from
Proficiency
the teacher and/or with some assistance from
peers, can transfer these understandings
through authentic performance tasks.
(80-84%)

16. Final Grade and Honor Students
 Final Grade - to be reported as the average of the
four quarterly ratings, expressed in terms of the level
of proficiency
 Honor Students – to be drawn among those who
performed at the advance level

17. Feedback
 Results of the assessment across levels
should be fed back immediately to the
students, so that they know what to
improve further, and then they can plan
strategically how they can address any
learning deficiency.

18. Factors for Rating

19. Knowledge • (8%) Relevance of
(15%) - data/information to the
acquisition development of
of understanding
information
as • (7%) Adequacy of
evidenced data/information to
by the firm up and deepen
following: understanding

20. Rubric for Assessing Knowledge
 Relevance of data/information acquired (8%)
8% - Data/information acquired are
completely relevant to the development
of understanding.
6-7% - Data/information acquired are to a great
extent relevant to the development of
understanding.
4-5% - Data/information are to some extent
relevant to the development of
understanding.

21. Rubric for Assessing Knowledge
 Relevance of data/information acquired (8%)
2-3% - Data/information are of very
little relevance to the development
of understanding.

22. Rubric for Assessing Knowledge
 Adequacy of data/information to firm up and deepen
understanding (7%)
7% - Data/information are completely adequate
to firm up and deepen understanding
5-6% - Data/information are to a great extent
adequate to firm up and deepen
understanding
3-4% - Data/information are to some extent
adequate to firm up and deepen
understanding

23. Rubric for Assessing Knowledge
 Adequacy of data/information to firm up and deepen
understanding (7%)
1-2% - Data/information are very inadequate to
firm up and deepen understanding.

24. Skills (25%) -
meaning
making as
evidenced by •(10%)
the student’s
ability to
Understanding
process and of Content
make sense of
information, •(15%) Critical
and is assessed
based on the Thinking
following
criteria:

25. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
 Understanding of Content (10%)
Strong (8-10%) – The student understands
completely the full content required by the task
and can undertake with a great deal of
competence all of the following processes
relative to the content:
 Distinguish (whatever is appropriate to the subject) between
relevant and irrelevant content/ between fact and fiction/
between fact and opinion/ between fact and hearsay/ between
truth and propaganda/ between what is important and
unimportant/ between accurate and inaccurate content

26. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
 Understanding of Content (10%)
Strong (8-10%) – The student understands
completely the full content required by the task
and can undertake with a great deal of
competence all of the following processes:
 Outline the content at the required level of detail
 Organize the information coherently, logically

27. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
Developing (5-7%) – The student understands the
minimum content required by the task and can
undertake with some competence the following
processes:
 Distinguish (whatever is appropriate to the subject) between
relevant and irrelevant content/ between fact and fiction/
between fact and opinion/ between fact and hearsay/ between
truth and propaganda/ between what is important and
unimportant/ between accurate and inaccurate content

28. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
Developing (5-7%) – The student understands the
minimum content required by the task and can
undertake with some competence the following
processes :
 Outline the content at the required level of detail
 Organize the information coherently, logically

29. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
Weak (2-4%) – The student struggles to understand
the minimum content required by the task and has
great difficulty undertaking the following processes:
 Distinguish (whatever is appropriate to the subject) between
relevant and irrelevant content/ between fact and fiction/
between fact and opinion/ between fact and hearsay/ between
truth and propaganda/ between what is important and
unimportant/ between accurate and inaccurate content

30. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
Weak (2-4%) – The student struggles to understand
the minimum content required by the task and has
great difficulty undertaking the following processes:
 Outline the content at the required level of detail
 Organize the information coherently, logically

31. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
 Critical Thinking (15%)
Strong (13-15%) -The student demonstrates deep
analytical processing of information and can
perform with a great deal of competence the
following processes:
 Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such
as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform
a textual presentation into a flowchart, diagram, advance
organizer, etc.
 Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
 Reason logically, coherently

32. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
 Critical Thinking (15%)
Moderately Strong (10-12%) -The student
demonstrates fairly analytical processing of
information and can perform with some
competence the following processes:
 Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such
as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform
a textual presentation into a flowchart , diagram, advance
organizer, etc.
 Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
 Reason logically, coherently

33. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
 Critical Thinking (15%)
Developing (7-9%) -The student demonstrates little
analytical processing of information and strives
to perform the following processes:
 Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such
as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform
a textual presentation into a flowchart , diagram, advance
organizer, etc.
 Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
 Reason logically, coherently

34. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
 Critical Thinking (15%)
Weak (4-6%) -The student demonstrates very little
analytical processing of information and has great
difficulty performing the following processes:
 Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such
as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform
a textual presentation into a flowchart , diagram, advance
organizer, etc.
 Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
 Reason logically, coherently

35. Rubric for Assessing Skills (Meaning-Making)
 Critical Thinking (15%)
Very Weak (1-3%) -The student can barely
demonstrate analytical processing of information
and cannot perform the following processes:
 Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such
as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform
a textual presentation into a flowchart, diagram, advance
organizer, etc.
 Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
 Reason logically, coherently

36. Understanding(s)
(30%)- as • Breadth of
expressed using
the six facets of understanding
understanding: (connection to a wide
Explanation,
Interpretation, range of contexts)
Application,
Empathy,
Perspective, and • Depth of
Self-knowledge,
and are assessed understanding (use of
based on the insights, reflection)
following criteria:

37. Rubric for Assessing Understanding
 Strong (26-30%) -The student demonstrates
accurate, very extensive, and very deep
understanding of the topic/concept through any
three of the six facets of understanding--
Explanation, Interpretation, Application,
Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where
connection to a wide range of contexts and use of
insights and reflection are clearly evident.

38. Rubric for Assessing Understanding
 Moderately Strong (21-25%) -The student
demonstrates accurate, extensive, and deep
understanding of the topic/concept through any
three of the six facets of understanding--
Explanation, Interpretation, Application,
Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where
connection to a wide range of contexts and use of
insights and reflection are evident.

39. Rubric for Assessing Understanding
 Developing (16-20%) -The student strives to
demonstrate accurate, extensive, and deep
understanding of the topic/concept through any
three of the six facets of understanding--
Explanation, Interpretation, Application,
Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where
connection to a wide range of contexts and use of
insights and reflection are evident.

40. Rubric for Assessing Understanding
 Weak (11-15%) -The student can barely demonstrate
accurate, extensive, and deep understanding of the
topic/concept through any three of the six facets of
understanding-- Explanation, Interpretation,
Application, Perspective, Empathy, and Self-
Knowledge-- where connection to a wide range of
contexts and use of insights and reflection are
evident.

41. Rubric for Assessing Understanding
 Very Weak (6-10%) -The student cannot
demonstrate accurate, extensive, and deep
understanding of the topic/concept through any of
the six facets of understanding-- Explanation,
Interpretation, Application, Perspective, Empathy,
and Self-Knowledge-- where connection to a wide
range of contexts and use of insights and reflection
are evident.

42. • Products- outputs which are
reflective of learner’s creative
Transfer of application of understanding;
understanding and
to life
situations(30%) • Performances- skilful
as exhibition or creative
demonstrated execution of a process,
through reflective of masterful
application of learning or
understanding

43. Rubric for Assessing Products and
Performances
 Strong ( 26-30%) – The student (or the
team) independently demonstrates the
ability to create, add value and transfer
his/her/their understanding to life
situations in the form of products and
performances. This means that the product
or performance reflects the following
attributes:

44.  The entire process from planning to execution was
carried out by the student (or the team), with little or
no guidance from the teacher.
 The product or performance is well thought out by the
student (or team) from planning to execution. Potential
problems have been identified and appropriate
remediation has been put in place should problems
arise.
 There is evidence of value added by the student (or
team) in the execution of the process.
 The product or performance is a demonstration of
creative application of enduring understanding in a
new or novel context or situation.

45. Moderately Strong (21-25%) – – The student (or
the team) demonstrates the ability to create, add
value and transfer his/her/their understanding
to life situations in the form of products and
performances, but the product or performance
can still stand improvement in a number of areas,
namely:
 The entire process from planning to execution
was carried out by the student (or the team), with
some guidance/ coaching from the teacher.
 The product or performance is fairly well thought
out by the student (or team) from planning to
execution.

46.  There is some evidence of value added by the
student (or team) in the execution of the process.
There are attempts at novelty (e.g., formatting,
organization, packaging, presentation).
 The product or performance is a demonstration of
creative application of enduring understanding,
but the context or situation in which the
understanding is applied is a little ordinary or
common.

47. Developing (16-20%)- The student (or team) strives
to use understanding or learning creatively in
producing products or performances as manifested
in the following:
 The student or the team attempts to do the task
entirely on their own, but seeks the teacher’s help
for the major part of the process.
 The product or performance has some flaws in the
design that the student (or the team) has addressed
with some help from the teacher.

48.  There is little evidence of value added by the
student (or team) in the execution of the process.
There are limited attempts at novelty (e.g.,
formatting, organization, packaging, presentation).
 A little creative application of enduring
understanding is shown in the product or
performance. The context or situation in which the
understanding is applied is ordinary or common.

49. Weak (11-15%)- The student (or team) shows inadequacy
in using understanding or learning creatively in
producing products or performances. The inadequacy
is manifested in the following:
 The entire process from planning to execution could
not have been carried out by the student (or the team),
without the teacher’s guidance and coaching.
 The product or performance is poorly thought out by
the student (or team) from planning to execution.
There are marked flaws in the design that the student
(or the team) is not even aware of.

50.  There is almost no evidence of value added by the
student (or team) in the execution of the process
or in the use of understanding or learning.
 Every aspect (e.g., formatting, organization,
packaging, presentation ) of the product or
performance is just a copy of what has been taught
in class.

51. Very Weak (6-10%)- The student (or the team) shows
great difficulty in using understanding or learning
creatively in producing products or performances. The
difficulty is manifested in the following:
 The entire process from planning to execution was
poorly carried out by the student (or the team), even
with the teacher’s guidance and coaching.
 The product or performance is very poorly thought out
by the student (or team) from planning to execution.
There are many obvious flaws in the design that the
student (or the team) has ignored .

52.  There is no evidence of value added by the student
(or team) in the execution of the process. There
are no attempts at novelty (e.g., in formatting,
organization, packaging, presentation).
 The product or performance does not show
creative application of enduring understanding.
The context or situation in which the
understanding is applied is very ordinary or
common.

53. Frequency of Assessment
 Knowledge, skills, understanding and transfer shall
be assessed formatively (daily; weekly; scored and
recorded, but not graded) and summatively (scored,
recorded and graded) at the end of the unit, quarter,
or school year.